About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
MSNBCW 7
CSPAN 2
CNNW 1
CSPAN2 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 13
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13
that they may create and raise in the best environment. >> reporter: the other case presents a challenge to doma, the defense of marriage act, passed by congress 17 years ago. it blocks federal recognition of same-sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry denying them 1,000 federal benefits that other married couples get. it's being challenged by 83-year-old edie windsor of new york when they are spouse died and left her the estate, she got a tax bill for $360,000. >> if the federal government recognized the marriage it would have been zero. >> reporter: president obama now says it is unconstitutional. >> the basic principle that america is founded on, the idea that we're all created equal, applies to everybody. regardless of sexual orientation. >> reporter: house republicans are now defending doma in court. >> the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. and our financing a lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure we know what's constitutional and what isn't. >> reporter: the court hears the doma case on wednesda
that the first, at this point $5 million in inheritance is tax free. but doma says same-sex marriage is not recognize at the federal law. she didn't get that federal tax break. that's what doma is all about, as i read what senator paul is saying, he says he would agree with the plaintiff in this case that the federal government should grant her the rights that she has under the state in which she was married. >> interesting. i am aware that in new york today there's going to be a march over doma. there are a lot of strong opinions on either side. what's the next step other than the courts? >> well, it is the courts. this is going to come up before the court this week, monday, tuesday and wednesday they're going to hear proposition 8, the whole question of whether or not same-sex marriage can be banned as it was in california, then this issue of what the federal role should be. this is tough role for conservatives because they've held db the federal doma law signed by president bill clinton, puts the government right if the middle of same-sex marriage saying it will not recognize it e
's proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. the second case involves the defense of marriage act known as doma. that law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. right now people are lining up outside of the supreme court trying to get front-row seats to history. will the supreme court say i do to same-sex marriage or decide to punt? key players made their arguments today on cnn's "state of the union." >> we immediate to keep the debate live. americans on both sides of the issue are deeply invested on this debate of marriage and don't need a 50-state solution presented by the supreme court when our democratic institutions are perfectly capable of handling the issue. that's what the court will december glide the united states supreme court since the 1880s has 14 times described marriage as a fundmental right. when we are talking about this issue going before the court, we are talking about fundamental notions of people, justice, and liberty. >> >> supreme court's ruling may not come until june but the justices question during argument this week may reveal how they are leaning. bring in no
-- in the doma case, chris, because there the question is, if a state does decide to grant same-sex marriage, can the federal government refuse to recognize it, and there's a question here about whether the government has always or usually or normally deferred to the states to let them decide what marriage is. and lurking in both of them, it should be warned, is this question about whether the parties have legal standing to bring the cases. that's a much bigger issue in the doma case than it is in prop 8. >> i was going to say, pete, one of the most fascinating things i found in reading up about this is the standing question, do the people have the right to -- it's possible worry looking at this week as a massive moment and it's possible that the justices could rule no standing and maybe not. but let me play david boyce, the -- one of the lawyers in proposition 8 and arguing for and against repeal. let's play what they had to say over the weekend and come back and talk about it. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights
calling doma constitutional. >> it's not their rule to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and senate and signed into law by president clinton. and in our system of government, the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. >> and it will. starting tuesday. a constitutional law expert, nyu, and the president of founder of freedom and the right leaning heritage foundation. thank you to all of you for being here. folks who haven't followed this case as closely, how did we get here and why of these two cases being heard so close together? >> beginning with the second question, serendipity they're being heard together. winded they're way up through separate passes of the country to converge at the supreme court. the first case, perry case heard tuesday is a prop 8 case a state restriction on same-sex marriage. whereas the case herd wednesday, the defense of marriage act, whether or not federal benefits vts to be afforded to the same as couples married in their home states. >> the pew research poll showing support for same-se
clinton, who signed that into law say that d.o.m.a. should be overturned and senator rob portman is citing his familiarity with this issue, his son is gay. how do you think this is going to play out in the 2014 midterms and then subsequently 2016 general election? >> well, alex, we've seen a clear shift in public opinion on this issue over the last ten years. it's been quite dramatic. all sorts of polls now, including the reuter's poll last week shows that the public supports gay marriage even civil unions. even in the south, the majority supports gay marriage or civil unions together. democrats are united on this issue. they say it's a big winner, especially among younger voters, and there's a real sort of active debate within the republican party about how to play this. there's a lot of people saying we've got to stop emphasizing these social issues because they are not working in our favor. however, if you're going to have a divisive 2016 primary, rick santorum is going to want to talk about that and that could really hurt them. >> do you think that will be the case in 2016? if you look
, that is continuing to finance the defense of doma, it is a matter of policy -- >> confusing things here. let's not confuse the issue administration must position that it was unconstitutional. it was not their role to decide what was constitution. it was a lot that was signed into president -- into law by president clinton, and in our system of government, the administration does not get to decide what is constitutional. the supreme court does. our defense of the lawsuit is to make sure the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what is constitutional and what is not. to circle back -- [indiscernible] i wanted to ask you about the debt limit. weeks off, then back for three weeks. >> are you going to stick for dollar for dollar? but dollar for dollar is the plan, and we have had some discussions, but not any big discussions at this point. >> you perceive this whole budget issue, the sequester, has all been pushed up to august, are you open that those conversations with the president, are we gearing down for a showdown in august? >> we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester w
the issue of doma and the administration's decision that it was unconstitutional. it's not their role to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and the senate and signed into law by president clinton. in our system of government the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. and our lawsuit was to make sure that the proper forum was used to make sure that we know what's constitutional and what isn't. , you're to ask you back for three straight weeks after two weeks off. are you going to stick your -- >> dollar for dollar is the plan. we have not -- we have had some discussions but not any big discussions at this point. >> on that point do you foresee now the issue the sequester, government funding bill, debt limit, all been pushed to august, are you hoping to having those conversations with the president once again? are we gearing down to a showdown in august allah -- ala 2011? >> you're asking me a question i can't answer. we have made clear that to get rid of the sequester we need cuts and reforms that will put us o
married. d.o.m.a. about federal benefits when married. >> exactly. >> interrelated, but not the same issue. >> yes, because even if the supreme court says that prop 8 is struck down, that doesn't require any state to permit same-sex marriage. it will still be up to the states one way or the other. the only question in the doma case is whether the federal government will extend about 1,000 benefits, just like it would to opposite-sex couples, to gay couple who is get married. >> busy week, thank you. >>> the issue of same-sex marriage is among the most contentious facing the country. with both sides claiming they have moral and legal grounds to make their respective arguments. how the debate comes out could reshape how the country defines marriage for generations to come. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights are too important to be left to the ballot box. we've done that with race, we've done that with women, we've done that with every discriminated class. >> it's difficult for americans and our public policy
act or doma on wednesday. one of the top attorneys arguing against prop 8 which bans sa same-sex marriage in the state predicted a win while speaking on "meet the press." >> every time the supreme court makes a decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights are too important to be left to the ballot box. we've done it with race, with women, with every discriminating class and, remember, when the united states supreme court outlawed the bans on interracial marriage in 1967, 64% of the american people opposed interracial marriage and yet when that decision came down, there wasn't a ripple. >> today more than 160 rallies are planned across the country in support of what advocates call marriage equality. a recent abc news/"washington post" poll shows most americans think same-sex marriage should be legal. a major shift from nine years ago when more people were against gay marriage than were for it. but the poll also shows a significant age divide. 70% of people under the age of 40 support same-sex marriage while more over the age of 6 abelieve it should be illeg
. but what we doma maintain, and think the president is the first do so, is that israel has the rate to independently defend itself against any threat, including the iranian threat. >> i think the only thing i would add is that our intelligence cooperation on this issue, the consultation between our militaries, intelligence, is unprecedented. and there is not a lot of light, a lot of daylight, between our k our countries' assessments in terms of where iran is right now. i think what bb alluded to, which is absolutely correct, is each country has it make its own decisions when it comes to the awesome decision to engage in any kind of military action. and that israel is differently situated than the united states. and i would not expect that the prime minister would make a decision about his country's security and defer that to any other country. any more than the united states would defer our decisions about what was important for our national security. i have shared that with bb, is i said to the entire world, and said to the iranian people and iranian leaders, that i think there is
party coming up with a video changing the clinton view on doma and in the republican party, we're hearing from all across the spectrum that regardless of what the supreme court does the party needs to have a more libertarian view on this. republicans are telling us it would be a huge help with fund-raising especially in the big states of new york, california, and florida. if the republican party were to be more open on this. and people are telling us that investors don't want to invest what they think losing national elections which could continue to be the case if republicans stay very narrow on this issue. republicans i talked to even extremely conservative ones, very christian conservative republicans are telling me the polls they have seen in the last couple of weeks have been eye-opening, showing not only that young people very heavily in favor of gay marriage, but if you extrapolate that a little bit in just 10, 20 years, this is going to be 70/30 issue that republicans are going to be quickly going to be on the wrong side of. >> to your point, mike, looking at a graphic.
by the state's voters in 2008. justices will also consider the 1996 defense of marriage act or doma that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. the central claim in both cases is that plaintiffs were denied equal protection of the law. later today a panel of attorneys who have been active in the debate and litigation will give a preview of what to expect by the high court. the event is hosted by george washington university law school, and you can see it live beginning at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight on "first ladies," called a bigamist and adulterer, rachel jackson dies of an apparent heart attack before andrew jackson takes office. his niece, emily donaldson, becomes the white house hostess but is later dismissed as fallout from a scandal. and during the next administration, angelica van buren is the white house hostess for her father-in-law, president martin van buren, who is a widower. of live tonight at 9 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> a hearing now by a house foreign affairs subcommittee on the threat of hezbollah,
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13